Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y24HK0Og

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

The 10 Best Conservative Replacements For Glenn Beck’s Fox News Slot | NewsReal Blog

Since the announcement that Glenn Beck is leaving Fox News, conspiracy theories abound. We may never know the whole story or the details behind the split but what we can do is wildly speculate who is going to take his place. The most important thing Fox News president Roger Ailes should keep in mind is whoever takes Beck's time slot has to be someone who makes the Left put their full-blown moonbattery on display. It must be someone who pushes all the right buttons and enrages leftists, causing them to picket and boycott and all the other fun and hilarious things they do when confronted by conservative truth-tellers.
The thing I'll miss most about Beck being gone is the reaction from all the statist twerps who hate him with a frenzy that can only be compared to neurotic miniature poodles who pee on the carpet when overexcited. Ailes should focus like a laser on replacing Beck with only the most hated personality he can find. Not only will it keep the ratings up, but it will provide sane people with fantastic entertainment. The following are 10 suggestions for conservative hosts sure to make the Left angrier (and funnier) than they already are.

10. We Have Lesbians Too, Only Ours Are Prettier: Meet Tammy Bruce
Nothing infuriates the Left more than a traitor, and Tammy Bruce is a pretty big traitor. Bruce is a lesbian, a former NOW chapter president, and lifelong Democrat. Then she saw the light when she realized that individuals aren't welcome on the Left. Group-think is a requirement and Bruce isn't a team player. She's been one of the most popular conservative talk-show hosts and a best-selling author ever since. She loves to tweak the Left and isn't afraid to say unpopular things. Readers at the Huffington Post went bananas after she called Michelle Obama trash.

"That's what he's married to," Bruce said. "…You know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic…categories. You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash, are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy…"

Just perusing the reader comments is a fun trip down the the progressive rabbit hole.

These are the kinds of people, however, that will encourage the upcoming slaughter of Republicans in the next election. In this way they are doing for the American people what Anita Bryant did for the gays- stir them to action. I look forward VERY MUCH to seeing far fewer Republican­s in the Congress and Senate after the next election. ~Johnny76

Those were delusional ramblings that Johnny76 wrote in 2009. In case you weren't aware, the election in 2010 ushered in a record number of Republicans and enough people to fill the mall in D.C. who also think the White House is full of trash.

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/11/10-best-replacements-for-glenn-beck-fox-slot/

Where's the Beef?

"Where's the beef?" asked Walter Mondale of Gary Hart, at the latter's overuse of the phrase "new ideas" during the 1984 Democratic primary campaign for President against Ronald Reagan.

For Palin fans, love conquers all, and the winning ways of their heroine more than qualifies her for President. Truth be told, she is beautiful, but beauty requires proof, at least in our American culture, that the lady has more on the ball than surface appeal.

So the question arises, "Where's the beef?" Can she discuss issues with any great ideological depth? "Common-sense conservative solutions" remains an empty platitude without evidence she has thought widely and deeply about the intellectual foundations of our constitutional republic, about natural rights philosophy, limited government, and the primacy of the individual.

Palin's debut on Fox News gave us the opportunity to see what she's been up to beyond earning some glorious and much needed profit on her best-selling book, Going Rogue, and the view has not been altogether re-assuring.

Does anyone honestly believe they would be making excuses for Ronald Reagan letting Bill O'Reilly interrupt him? Let's get real, people. Wouldn't happen and that's one--just one--of the many reasons we admire Reagan.

Palin is young, very young, and she is unseasoned. The hope has been expressed her gig on Fox would give her that seasoning and the further opportunity to develop the intellectual and rhetorical skills necessary to drop her opponent in a media-driven culture, where perception crystallizes conviction.

The ball is now in her court, she's been given a splendid opportunity, and if she drops the ball, let's not blame others as so many conservatives do at American Thinker.

The future of our country as a free, civilized society may well rest in the play. The fact our future appears to depend on the fortunes of one woman is our fault, not hers. We elected these leaders who now ride us as beasts of burden. Will we throw them off even if Palin disappoints?

Tom Anderson

January 2010

The Promise of Sarah Palin

Thomas Lifson in a recent post at American Thinker, expresses a disappointment in Sarah Palin's lack of ideological depth as she debuted on Fox News last week, and I agree she's not ready yet for prime time, either as a candidate for President, or as a news commentator.  If I have to hear "common-sense conservative solutions" many more times I swear I'll fast-forward to the next segment on The Factor.

Having stated what I take to be an obvious truth, I want to point out to those political cognoscenti who did not grow up during the fifties, that it took Ronald Reagan a good decade to perfect his speaking and thinking skills to produce the speech he gave at the 1964 Republican Convention, one of the greatest political oratories in modern times.

While Ms. Palin gave an electrifying speech accepting the 2008 Republican nomination for Vice President, her lack of ideological depth in defense of individual rights was lost in the fellow feeling of the moment that here, at least, was a politician who understood, if only on a gut-level, the threat posed to our survival as a free society by the knavish election of that mountebank, Barack Hussein Obama, and his low compatriots in what passes today for the Democratic Party.

Fox News will offer Sarah Palin an opportunity to develop the mental toughness that comes from taking the ideological battle to the enemy, learning how to thrust, as well as to parry.  She needs that cold hard steel one saw and so much admired in Margaret Thatcher of England, who relished the title, intended as a jibe, given her by the Soviets, as "the Iron Lady." 

Sarah Palin may fail.  But as Lifson notes, through self-education, she may come not only to see through the false intellectualism of the foolish classes who only pretend to run our affairs of state, but to arrive on the other side with a wisdom purchased by hard thought about how to create a political and constitutional order founded on the protection of individual rights.

Common-sense is fine, but I am afraid Mr. Obama would have a field day slicing and dicing her candidacy.  She appears to be, however, a fast learner, and she also possesses beauty as well as brains.  The beautiful may be bold, yet Americans have a right and a duty to skepticism towards those who put themselves forward to lead, and it is always tempting to dismiss beauty for the simple reason the embodiment in one person of such perfection requires a higher bar, as if to sift out the fatal flaw.

Sarah Palin is almost too much, and that sense I suspect is what fuels the alienation so many feel for her.  We like our political leaders best when they successfully marshal through some great challenge,
proving to us they are worthy of our trust.  We have seen, and shall continue to see what happens to leadership founded on calculated deception and its supporters' willful suspension of the critical faculty.  They will now, having been so sorely disappointed, fall upon the political corpse of Obama with unseemly relish.

The folks likely to support Sarah Palin will want to see the beef, as the expression goes, and now she has a splendid opportunity on Fox News to give Americans hope our current national nightmare will end in 2012.

Do you think Sarah Palin shows true promise?  Or will she be nothing more than a sideshow, a salve to our past electoral wounds, a bridge to nowhere?

Tom Anderson
January 2010